Foxx said in his proclamation that May 2 should be A Day of Reason because “the application of reason, more than any other means, has proven to offer hope for human survival on Earth.”

What’s wrong with this? Who could argue with reason?

Here’s the problem.

The American Humanist Association, whose slogan is “Good without a God,” created the National Day of Reason with the Washington Area Secular Humanists to raise awareness about government threats to religious liberty and up the profile of the non-religious community. The day will includes acts of service and discussions on rational thought.

In other words, Foxx is taking the occasion of the Day of Prayer to honor an institution that is hostile to the concept. The anger behind the “reason” movement is displayed clearly in their poster ==>

If we want to have a Day of Reason, that’s just fine. But why create a conflict in doing so? There’s no need to shoehorn yourself into somebody else’s holiday. This merely serves to divide us and increase domestic hostility. Let these “reasonable” people make their own holiday; no need to crowd out the other guy. They don’t do that because their purpose is to crowd out the other guy.

(As a personal note, I was raised in a secular environment. I’d call myself an advocate of “reason”, as far as it goes. But a few history lessons, and some observations of the state of the modern world, convinced me that reason alone is not an adequate foundation upon which to build a just or civil society. “Reason” is used to justify every bit of narcissistic nonsense and oppression and evil that man has concocted. “Reason” is all too often an excuse to rationalize our underlying emotional turmoil. “Reason” gave us the French and Russian revolutions; “reason” gave us Gulag and genocide. No, of course I’m not anti-reason. Life and history show that, yes, we must use our brains and our reason. But without God, we will find “reason” without wisdom, and we will go astray.)

Anyway, Foxx is the sort of man Obama recruits into his cabinet. The intolerant bully who makes a point of poking his finger into your eye.

Pilgrims and Puritans sailed the treacherous ocean to an unsettled land to be free from religious persecution. Our founding fathers knew that the persecutors would continue pursuit and some day gain control of government. That’s why, in part, the first amendment of the Bill of Rights is there.

Regarding the DB’s appointments, I think Bo was the last non-divisive non-hostile to religion appointment.

Bo was indeed divisive, in that he was named after his master (am I allowed to use that word?). That is to say, the DB’s initials. Imagine being so narcissistic that you name your dog after yourself! Either that or they named him after the way he smelled. One way or another, it was B.O. Rumor has it that Bo is registered to vote. Speaking of which, it turns out that Ariel Castro was a registered Dimocrat. Why am I not surprised? Some say Romney was the architect of Obamacare, but I say Ariel Castro was the true architect. Institutional meals, gainful employment working from home (eliminating those nasty CO2 emissions!), excellent contraceptive benefits, and of course the overriding mandate — the whole package, prototyped right in the Castro home. What’s not to like? The press doesn’t report this, and why should they? The press only reports the unusual. A Republican criminal would be trumpeted. That would be a man-bites-Bo story. But who would bite Bo? Not I!